Sims v. Collins

• Decision Date: 27 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. 1999-CA-00077-COA.,1999-CA-00077-COA.
• Citation: 762 So.2d 785
• Parties: Michael W. SIMS, Toni Sims and Kimberly Sims, Appellants, v. Billy R. COLLINS, Jr., Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

762 So.2d 785

Michael W. SIMS, Toni Sims and Kimberly Sims, Appellants, v. Billy R. COLLINS, Jr., Appellee.

No. 1999-CA-00077-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 27, 2000.

Travis Buckley, Ellisville, Attorney for Appellants.

Harold W. Melvin, Laurel, Patricia Melvin, University, Attorneys for Appellee.

EN BANC.

IRVING, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. Michael Sims (Sims), Toni Sims and Kimberly Sims filed an action in Jones County Circuit Court to recover damages for personal injuries and damages to their vehicle when they collided with Billy R. Collins. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Collins. After the Simses's post-trial motions were denied by the trial court, they perfected this appeal, assigning for our review the following issues which are quoted verbatim from their brief:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE DEFENDANT.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UNDULY LIMITED [SIC] THE PLAINTIFF IN CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO EXPRESS AN OPINION AS TO THE COST OF RESTORING HIS VEHICLE.

Finding reversible error in the trial judge's grant of Collins's motion in limine, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

¶ 2. Michael Sims and Billy Collins were both proceeding north on Interstate 59 when their vehicles collided. It is undisputed that the point of contact between the vehicles was to the right side of Sims's vehicle and to the left side of Collins's vehicle; however, at trial the Simses and the Collinses gave different accounts as to the events which led to the accident. Sims testified that as he and his family returned home from Hattiesburg, he entered onto I-59 going north. Sims stated that he saw Collins's vehicle in the left lane of the interstate. After entering the interstate, Sims pulled into the left lane behind Collins's car. Sims stated that he and Collins both stayed in the left lane until they approached the Leaf River Bridge. When Sims and Collins arrived at the bridge, Collins moved into the right lane. Sims remained in the left lane and proceeded to pass Collins. Sims testified that he stayed in the left lane because he knew that construction was ahead and that the right lane was closed. While attempting to pass Collins, Sims saw Collins pulling back into the left lane overtaking Sims's vehicle and consequently bumping Sims's vehicle twice. According to Sims, Collins exited Collins's vehicle and in an instant pointed and aimed a pistol at the Simses.

¶ 3. Collins testified that Sims followed closely behind his vehicle for approximately one and a half miles before he and Sims approached the bridge. As Sims followed, Sims continuously flashed his high beam and low beam headlights. Collins stated that as he attempted to pull into the right lane, Sims attempted to pass Collins before Collins could clear the left lane, and as a consequence, Sims hit Collins's vehicle.

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Did the trial court err in granting Collins's motion in limine?

¶ 4. The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Thompson Mach.Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss.1997). The trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine if he determines that 1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and 2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury. Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988).

¶ 5. Collins filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the Simses from presenting any testimony or evidence based on paragraph III of the Simses's complaint. Paragraph III states:

The Defendant (Collins), an instant after the collision, exited his vehicle and pointed and aimed at the Plaintiffs (the Simses) a pistol or firearm and brandished it and exhibited it in the presence of the Plaintiffs in a dangerous and threatening manner, thereby placing the Plaintiffs in fear of eminent serious bodily injury at his hands and in violation of laws and constituting criminal misconduct for which they now sue the Defendant.

¶ 6. In his motion in limine, Collins argued that paragraph three was prejudicial to him and was without basis or connection to the collision, constituting a separate factual matter. The Simses argue that Collins's actions after the collision were so inexorably joined together in time and with the chain of events surrounding the accident that it was impossible for the jury to get a clear picture or clear understanding of the entire incident without this evidence.

¶ 7. The Simses also argue that the complaint contained two separate causes of actions and that they were entitled to bring both in one proceeding. Collins agrees the complaint contains two separate causes of action and agues that Rule 10(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires the two causes to be pled in separate counts. The trial judge, without making a specific finding, sustained Collins's motion.

¶ 8. The subject paragraph sounds much like an allegation of an assault with a deadly weapon and does contain a statement that the Simses are suing Collins for that action. However, when the complaint, though inartfully drafted, is read in its entirety, including an inartfully crafted prayer, it is clear that the Simses were suing for damage to their person, including damages stemming from both physical injury and the emotional stress emanating from having a gun intentionally pointed at them immediately after the accident. There was no evidence of any separate provocation on the part of the Simses to warrant Collins's gun-brandishing action. ¶ 9. In paragraph V of their complaint, the Simses alleged:

The injuries that the Plaintiffs suffered were to various and numerous portions of their bodies. Due to the trauma, from the said assault the Plaintiffs suffered mental and emotional fear, dread, anguish and will continue to so suffer, for which they demand compensation.

Paragraph III, quoted on page 3 of this opinion, is a textbook allegation of an assault with a deadly weapon. The language in paragraph V alleging trauma from the "said assault" could only refer to the assault described in paragraph III as do the allegations of mental and emotional fear, dread and anguish.

¶ 10. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a court looks to the content of pleadings to determine the nature of the action. West v. Combs, 642 So.2d 917, 920 (Miss.1994) (citing Pierce v. Chapman, 165 Miss. 749, 755, 143 So. 845, 847 (1932)). "Substance is considered over form." Id. (citing Lancaster v. Jordan Auto. Co., 185 Miss. 530, 545, 187 So. 535, 537 (1939)). The label is not controlling. Id.

¶ 11. We are unpersuaded by Collins's argument that the Simses's failure to plead their claims in separate counts warranted the trial judge's exclusion of the pistol-pointing evidence. "MRCP Rule 10(b) requires claims to be presented in separate counts only when two conditions are met: the claims must be founded upon separate transactions or occurrences and a separation must facilitate the clear presentation of the matters set forth." MRCP 10(b) cmt. As stated, we do not find that the pistol-pointing incident arose out of any separate occurrence. Further, the rule regulates the form of pleadings, not the admissibility of evidence.

¶ 12. The jury was entitled to hear the complete story of what happened as a part of the res gestae of the incident giving rise to the Simses' cause of action. See, e.g., Oates v. State, 437 So.2d 441 (Miss.1983); Woods v. State, 393 So.2d 1319 (Miss.1981); McCormick v. State, 159 Miss. 610, 132 So. 757 (1931). Though the impact to the vehicles had occurred before Collins exited his vehicle and pointed the gun at Mr. Sims, it was part and parcel of the continuing event, for there is not the slightest hint or suggestion in the record that the gun-pointing incident was the result of some separate altercation between the Simses and Collins. Having chosen to intimidate the Simses by brandishing his gun at them, Collins should not be able to profit from his own wrongful actions by claiming the incident to be so prejudicial that evidence of its occurrence should be kept from the jury. This is especially true since the gun-brandishing incident was a part of the totality of circumstances surrounding the vehicle collision.

¶ 13. Further, we reject Collins's argument that evidence of the gun-pointing incident is irrelevant as to Collins's role in the causation of the accident, for the jury could have interpreted Collins's action in pointing the gun as an attempt to shield his guilt in causing the accident by this act of intimidation. In other words, while the gun-pointing incident had nothing to do with causing the accident, it may very well have been viewed by the jury as pointing a finger at the person guilty of actually causing the accident, and that was the ultimate issue to be resolved by the jury in the negligence claim.

¶ 14. Accordingly, we hold that the jury should have been allowed to hear the entire series of events connected with the accident. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that, before a trial judge grants a motion in limine, the judge must be certain that such action will not unduly restrict the opposing party's presentation of its case. Whittley, 530 So.2d at 1344. We find that Collins's alleged action of brandishing a pistol immediately following the accident is relevant and that the Simses should have been allowed to introduce evidence concerning Collins's action immediately following the impact. The trial court's order unduly restricted the Simses from presenting their case; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion in limine.

¶ 15. Additionally, Collins contends that the Simses failed to make a proffer of any evidence on the motion in limine. Be...